POLITICAL COLUMN

Text Size

Mitt Romney at the Presidential debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley.
Robert A. Reeder

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. -- It would be terribly irresponsible to pick a winner of Thursday night’s Republican debate. So I will.

I think Mitt Romney won. And I think John McCain came in second and Rudy Giuliani came in third.

(There were seven other men on the stage, but I don’t think any of them are in danger of becoming president, so I am going to skip them for the time being.)

Let’s take my top three in reverse order:

Rudy Giuliani often gives his speeches off the cuff, because he speaks a lot and he doesn’t really need to prepare much.

But debates are different. It is hard to do a debate off the cuff. Debates are more complex and more demanding performances than speeches and Giuliani seemed to lack a plan of attack and a plan of defense.

Debates are not just about answering the questions you are asked. Debates are about giving your answers no matter what questions you are asked and Giuliani sometimes missed chances to make his points.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked all the Republican contenders, “Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?”

Giuliani, who is pro-choice, replied: “It would be OK.”

“OK to repeal?” Matthews said.

“It would be OK to repeal,” Giuliani said. “It would be also [OK] if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision.”

If you are asking “huh?” at this point, so was Chris Matthews.

“Would it be OK if they didn't repeal it?” Matthews asked.

“I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it,” Giuliani said.

Maybe Giuliani’s answer was designed to win over both sides of the issue, but abortion is probably not an issue where you can win over both sides.

As to Giuliani’s strength -- his strong position on fighting terrorism -- he didn’t really establish himself on the issue during the debate.

John McCain needed to project optimism and enthusiasm and he often did. He was also forceful when it came to wanting to follow Osama bin Laden “to the gates of hell.”

But McCain had a nervous start, and didn’t really answer a question he should have been prepared for.

“What would you need,” he was asked, “as commander in chief, to win the war in Iraq?”

McCain could have answered “more troops” since that is what he believes and has stated so in the past. Instead, he went for an answer he apparently thought was safer.

“I would need the support of the American people,” McCain replied. “I would need to be able to show them some success in Iraq, both on the battlefield as well as with the Maliki government.”

Which was a little less than specific.

Almost all the candidates seemed nervous and they had reason to be: Their party lost both houses of Congress last year, their president has low approval ratings and rarely do voters give the same party three presidential terms in a row.

But Mitt Romney achieved almost everything he wanted to achieve.

He looked and sounded presidential. He hit his talking points. And voters who knew nothing about him before the debate except that he was a Mormon, came away knowing a lot more.

Romney cannot alter the way he has changed his stance on things like abortion.

All he can do is face up to that and say he has changed his mind. Which he did. And he gave some red meat answers that primary voters often like:

Asked if he wanted to see Bill Clinton back living in the White House, he said: “The only thing I can think of that’d be as bad as that would be to have the Gang of Three running the war on terror: Pelosi, Reid and Hillary Clinton.”

Romney’s best answer may have come at the end, when he was asked: “How will you be different, in any way, from President George W. Bush?”

“I think we're each our own person; we have our own values,” Romney said. “I respect the president's character, his passion, his love for this country. I believe everything he does in this war against terror flows from a desire to protect the American people and to make our future secure.”

But then Romney went on to talk about the need for “at least 100,000 more troops, more military spending” and to “strengthen our economy” and “protect American jobs.”

And, finally, he said, hitting his last talking point: “Strengthen the American family. That's what we've got to do.”

Romney was a man with a plan. He knew what points he wanted to make and he made them.

Will it be enough to skyrocket him to the top of the polls? No. Debates almost never do that. But Romney did manage to introduce himself to voters in the way he wanted.

In the hours before the debate began, I watched the candidates separately walk through the debate hall in the Ronald Reagan Library, where one of Reagan’s presidential jets, one of his Air Force Ones, loomed hugely over the stage.

“You know,” Romney said, looking up. “I’ve never been on Air Force One.”

Then he smiled and looked very much like a man who intended to have one of his own some day.

Instead, I prefer to call you ignorant. The only man representing true, traditional conservatism on that stage was Ron Paul. I am irrate with MSNBC and Politico.com for ignoring and marginalizing his contribution. I have no horse in this race right now, but the only man that honored the Reagan legacy was Ron Paul. The rest were frauds.

MadManMoon : May. 4, 2007 - 12:23 AM ESTInstead, I prefer to call you ignorant. The only man representing true, traditional conservatism on that stage was Ron Paul. I am irrate with MSNBC and Politico.com for ignoring and marginalizing his contribution. I have no horse in this race right now, but the only man that honored the Reagan legacy was Ron Paul. The rest were frauds.

I think this about sums up my feelings as well. Ron Paul was the clear winner. In addition, I was disgusted by the behavior of Chris Mathews when Dr. Paul remarked that he would interpret the constitution as it was originally written. In all honesty, this debate sealed the deal for me. There is no question that I will now be voting for Ron Paul. If he does not get the nomination, I won't vote or I'll vote Libertarian.

You're sorely mistaken. Ron Paul won. Of course he doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination, because the press has already predetermined that he doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination. Somehow the press has become judge and jury of the nation's election/political systems. Why sponsor a debate with all of the candidates if the after-event press is going to exclude the performance of all but three?

I agree that Romney won in that he certainly had the best presence on camera, but as for your second and third place picks - you're nuts! McCain and Guilinani came across as political hacks. Ron Paul raised my curiousity with his straight forward answers, and I was disappointed to see him and other 2nd-tier candidates given less than equal time. Tancredo also performed well and I think he deserves to be a serious contender in the coming months.

I feel much more comfortable with Rudi being consistant in his beliefs (even though his party may not support him), thatn I do with Romney who has flip flopped on the position to make him more politically palitable. To me it demonstrates a lack of serious conviction.

And he did the same thing on gay marriage, first saying he'd be more liberal on gay rights than Ted Kennedy when he was running in Massachuttess, now saying he opposes gay marriage when he's running for governor.

I think Mike Huckabee's comment about how faith should be applied to one's beliefs is relevant to Romney's flip-flopping/waffling.

I agree that Romney won the debate. All his answers came from the heart and were well spoken. Even the question about abortion, he was man enough to say that he changed his mind after his state looked at it when he was governor. He then gave reasons on why he changed his mind. He will be a sound leader for this nation. As far as him leadng the nation as a ceo, that is essentially what the president is. The prez. cannot doing anything, very limited, without congress (which is like a board in a business). Romney has changed many things with his leadership not only in the private sector but also the public office/political sector with his strong leadership. Romney in '08......

If this Debate and the Democratic debate have demonstrated anything it is that the primary process ouoght to be scrapped. Sure, raise all the money and throw out all the red meet you want in so-callled townhall meetings and partisan events, but the idea that the American people would let these people get away with running far to the right and left and then break their necks scampering back to the center after they've secured their parties' nomination is absolutely rediculous. The American people complain about flip-flopping candidates when we are the ones responsible for it. I have a sense having watched the debate tonight that , save for Ron Paul, these people will do and say anything to win the support of a small minority of Americans who choose candidates. Think about it! A March 2007 Rasmussen poll indicates that 37 percent of American adults identify themselves as democrats, 31 percent identify themselves as as republicans. A candidate can win his parties nomination with a tiny minority of the American people actually supporting their candidacy. You want too know why so few people take the time to vote in presidential campaigns? it's because the REAL support for the two left standing is lukewarm. the vast majority of voters end up holding their noses and voting for someone they really don't believe in. Even in the most perilous of times, presidential elections are reduced to voting for their third, fourth, fifth choice for no other reason than the fact that there is a donkey or an elephant next to their names.. And when you include the VP, the choices become even less attractive. We suspend belieff and convince ourselves that the top of the ticket is speaking to our interests.. And why? Because the corporate and special interests have poured so much money in the campaigns allowing them to pollute the airwaves with statements that go unchallenged, grossly oversimplified solutions to complexed problems, unabashed fear mongering designed to convince a small group of paranoids that if the other guy (or gal) wins your way of life is going to come to a screeching hault. ... that the boogy man is going to sneak into your home and choke the life out of you ... that the government is going to confiscate all of your wordly belongings leaving you penniless on the side of the road or homeless and living underneath a bridge. It is pure farce. It is a con job of the highest magnitude. One of these days I pray that my fellow countrymen wake up realize that the coffee they smell is actually a steaming pile of garbage and horse dung. Maybe Unity '08 is the answer ... maybe we need a parlimentary system. Maybe Americans need to stop watching so much doggone pro sports and american ideal because this is not a game. It is about the future of our country.

Even if Romney "won", he - as well as Giuliani - could have lost big if this had been a real debate with real questions instead of what looks like a junior high school effort. Consider the national ID card question. I was familiar with Giuliani's position, so I knew he was refering to "foreigners". Matthews needed to have that pointed out to him. If Matthews wasn't just a lightweight hack, he would have followed that up with a question concerning exactly how we can have a "tamper-proof" (most likely biometric) ID that "guests" need to get jobs, without the same card eventually being required for citizens as well. The answer: it's not possible. The first job discrimination lawsuit from the ACLU would see to that. Now, when I heard their answers, I knew that Giuliani and Romney were either unable to figure that out, or supported a sneak national ID card for everyone. In either case, they aren't qualified to be president. Pointing out that they don't know what they're talking about - or they're supporting something that's far different from what they're saying - would have had a very significant impact on their campaigns. Instead, I'm surprised we didn't get questions like, "what's your favorite movie?" The Politico should take a long, hard look at whether they really want to be involved in fluff, worthless, time-wasting "debates" like this in the future.

I thought that I heard on one of the early questions, Ron Paul said he believed in the original intent of the Constitution I thought I could actually hear Chris Matthews say "Oh, God!" in the background. Tell me that this is not correct?

Romney came across as crisp and clear. He seemed bold when it mattered most and was to the point in highlighting his plans. His good sense of humor is also refreshing. Looks very presidential to me. Don in Nevada

Ron Paul was the only one who was consistent with his beliefs. The others were all phonies who pander to their base. I don't agree with much Dr. Paul says (except that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq). The rest of them put party loyalty over patriotism.

Just proves you don't have a soul and good judgement. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18... Heres a poll from msnbc clearly showing the winner is Dr. Ron Paul! I have alot of trust in this man, so he gets my vote..so far ;)

What a silly softball-question liberal feel-good debate! What do you hate most about America? How do you feel about Bill Clinton back in the White House? Puke!!! With such fluff for topics, it is no wonder the winner is based on little more than appearence; the best being Romney. Conversely, the most substantial in terms of substance was Ron Paul, who came across well for tacking tough topics in 1 minute time constraints; but at the same time may have appeared too serious for most of dumb-downed American couch-patatoes!!!

You're sorely mistaken. Ron Paul won. Of course he doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination, because the press has already predetermined that he doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination. Somehow the press has become judge and jury of the nation's election/political systems. Why sponsor a debate with all of the candidates if the after-event press is going to exclude the performance of all but three?

Numbers do not lie! It is not over man. Do not give up yet, and if you believe in Ron Paul I'm sure he could use your vote. This is just the beggining. He will get the media's attention, you just watch.

Will someone please tell me what the heck "Looks Presidential" means? As a country we need to grow up. Why do we care if a guy looks good on TV ... like a movie star ... or walks like "The Duke" if he's too dumb to pour pee out of a boot with the directions on the bottom?

The voters of this country would choose an empty suit over a person of great intellect and vision and then wonder why we end up with a putz like George Bush. I'm less concerned about whether a candidate LOOKS like a president as long as he THINKS and COMMUNICATES like one.